Can lawmakers save face?

Ambitious is probably an inadequate word for the list of reforms Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposes to have the Legislature agree to in exchange for a pay raise. It’s more likely pie in the sky.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth a shot.

A lot does seem to be standing in the way of any significant reform in what remains of 2016. History suggests this Legislature is simply incapable of it. Democratic Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie has voiced his objection to a quid pro quo, which is understandable: It may be how deals get done in reality but it looks particularly sleazy when lawmakers are horse trading good government for personal enrichment. Many lawmakers stated in their re-election campaigns that they oppose a raise. Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan and his Republican conference have blocked certain reforms that are absolutely essential.

Even if legislators surmounted all that, though, the time frame is tight. They’d need to work out the particulars of both a raise and the reforms, draft legislation, including possible constitutional changes, and pass it.

And did we mention time for public review? There had better be that, especially if some of this involves amending the state constitution. Two of the governor’s ideas – term limits and increasing terms for Senate and Assembly from two to four years, with an eight-year cap – would require constitutional changes.

Longer terms are not a bad idea, particularly if they come with lower campaign contribution limits. It’s a fair trade – if lawmakers run less often, they need less money. It would finally start getting at least some of the corrupting influence of big money out of New York politics.

Lower limits will have little effect, however, without closing the loophole that allow rich donors to skirt campaign limits by funneling contributions through limited liability corporations, which New York treats as separate individuals. The Senate has opposed that change, and the governor didn’t even include it in his list of possible reforms.

There’s certainly more that could go into ethics and campaign finance reforms, but whatever the package, this can’t be another rush job, pushed through in the dead of night with a message of necessity from the governor. It’s essential there be at least the three days the law requires for public review of the bills, especially if there are constitutional changes on tap.

It’s worth noting that it will be quite a while before any constitutional change can go into effect. Such changes must be approved by two successive legislatures before they go to a public referendum, but because of a quirk in the state constitution that states that the second vote must be held after the next general Assembly election, it would take at least until 2019 before that second legislative vote, and a public referendum, could be held. Lawmakers would get their raise; New Yorkers would get three more years of waiting for reform. And who knows if a future Legislature will keep this one’s word.

But the Legislature could make some significant changes now, including lowering campaign spending limits and closing the LLC loophole. We urge lawmakers to seize this chance to clean up a legislature that lost both its last two top leaders to corruption charges. A chance, that is, to make some significant changes before they’re “stuck” with their not-too-shabby part-time pay, and the undying disrespect of citizens, for years to come.

Note: An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that the second vote on a constitutional amendment could take place next year.